1 2025:CGHC:54027 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 361 of 2025  Bhupendra Singh Muchhal S/o Shri Sardar Mehar Singh Aged About 59 Years R/o Chawla Watch Company Balodabazar Tahsil And, District Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus  Punjab National Bank Branch Barela Takhatpur District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Through Its Branch Manager Punjab National Bank Branch Barela Takhatpur,, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Review Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani, Adv. For Respondent : Mr. Sudhanshu Upadhyay, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Sharad Mishra, Adv. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 6/11/2025 1. By way of this review petition, the review petitioner has sought recall/ modification of the order dated 18.8.2025 passed in WP227 No. 576 of 2022, parties being Bhupendra SIngh Muchhal Versus Punjab National Bank, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner herein was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner who is seeking modifi- cation/ review of the order dated 18.8.2025 passed in WP227 No. 576 of 2022 submits that an interim order was passed in his favor in FA No. 273 Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.11.07 13:42:17 +0530 2 of 1998 dated 19.7.2000 whereby direction was issued to renew the FDR from time to time. He further submits that application was also moved be- fore the bank authorities for renewal of FDR but it was not taken into con- sideration but this application finds reference in the letter dated 28.10.2000 issued by the bank and this fact has not been taken into ac- count by this Court while passing the order impugned, therefore an imme- diate review of the order dated 18.8.2025 would be expedient in the inter- est of justice. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the contention raised hereinabove were not raised at the time of hearing of writ petition. He contends that petitioner cannot be permitted to re-argue the writ petition, therefore this petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material/ documents available on the record. 5. Admittedly, the interim order dated 19.7.2000 was duly considered in paragraphs No. 9 and 10 by this Court. The order dated 19.7.2000 would make it clear that FDR was renewed for period of three years and thereafter, no attempt was made by the review petitioner for further renewal of FDR and no such application was moved during pendency of FA No. 273 of 1998. In the letter dated 28.10.2000, bank authority has stated that the FDR concerned (Account No. 91) was renewed w.e.f. 13.8.1991 up to 24.6.2001, three years from the date of order i.e. 25.6.1998. It appears that application for modification was moved on 19.7.2000 before the bank authorities and on the very same date, order was passed in FA No. 273 of 1998 wherein direction was issued to renew the FDR for period of three years. Evidently, review petitioner has not 3 raised any specific ground for review in this review petition, rather he has pleaded the facts of writ petition. 6. On due consideration of the above-stated pleadings and other grounds raised in the instant review petition, which are in the nature of taking the liberty to re-argue the writ petition are unsustainable in the eyes of law. The review petitioner cannot be allowed to commit a volte-face and take up new pleas in the review petition. 7. At this juncture, it shall be advantageous to discuss the law with regard to the power of review. The Court may review its judgment or order, but no application for review shall be entertained except on the grounds mentioned under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC. 8. Section 114 of the CPC vests power of review in Courts and Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC provides for the scope and procedure for filing a review. The same is reproduced hereunder:- “Order 47 Rule 1 CPC: "1. Application for review of judgment- Any person considering himself aggrieved- (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred. (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important' matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order. (emphasis supplied) (2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except 4 where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applied for the review. Explanation: The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment." 9. In the matter of M/s Northern India (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governer of Delhi, 1980 (2) SCC 167, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “A plea for review, unless the first judicial view is manifestly distorted, is like asking for the moon. A forensic defeat cannot be avenged by an invitation to have a second look, hopeful of discovery of flaws and reversal of result. A review in counsel's mentation cannot repair the verdict once given. So the law laid down must rest in peace.” 10. In the matter of Sajjan Singh and others vs. State of Rajasthan and others [AIR 1965 SC 845], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “the parties are not entitled to seek review of the judgment delivered by this Court merely for purpose for review and fresh decision of the case. The normal principle that judgments pronounced by this Court would be final, cannot be ignored and unless considerations of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so.” 11. In the matter of Parsion Devi and others v. Sumitri Devi and others reported in 1997 (8) SCC 715, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-9 held as under:- “Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of 5 the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". A review petition, it must be remembered has limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise.” 12. In the matter of M/S Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd v. Assam State Electricity Board reported in 2020 (2) SCC 677, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the petition and held that “The scope of review is limited and under the guise of review, petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions, which have already been addressed and decided.” 13. In the matter of Beghar Foundation v. K.S. Puttaswamy, (2021) 3 SCC 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “even the change in law of or subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review.” 14. In the matter of Satyanarayan Laxminarayan v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa reported in AIR 1960 SC 137, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-8 held as under:- “8. The main question that arises for our consideration in this appeal by special leave granted by this Court is whether there is any error apparent on the face of the record so as to enable the superior court to call for the records and quash the order by a writ of certiorari or whether the error, if any, was "a mere error not so apparent on the face of the record", which can only be corrected by an appeal if an appeal lies at all.” 15. In the present review petition, the review petitioner has prayed for recall of the order passed by this Court in WP227 No. 576 of 2022. The prayer made by the review petitioner appears to be misconceived. Further, the case [WP227 No. 576 of 2022] was decided by this Court on 18.8.2025 after discussing the facts and going through the documents available on the record; there is no error of law apparent on the face of the record, 6 therefore, the prayer sought for modifying/recalling of the order passed in WP227 No. 576 of 2022 by way of this review petition is not permissible, and in the opinion of this Court, no ground is made out for review. 16. Accordingly, the instant review petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE A j i n k y a